Posted on by Nathan Riley

Freedom Solves Problems

Supporting freedom offers advantages that make it a wise policy choice.

The most obvious: it keeps people out of jail. If we can buy safe drugs legally, then the Mexican drug cartel suffers a disastrous defeat. The United States buyers stop sending millions of dollars to the violent groups that supply drugs north of the Mexican border. Since no good deed goes unpunished, Mexico will have to adjust to a major change in its economy and social organization. But even this problem has a sunny side. These adjustments will have an ending. The smuggling of drugs to the United States has no ending. Americans have made it crystal clear that they will use drugs no matter what laws politicians write. Bringing the law into alignment with human behavior is a basic benefit of freedom.

Instead of saying “No, don’t.” We say “Work with your doctor, and buy drugs made safe for users.” Making it legal brings tax revenue, another benefit of freedom, at a time when budget deficits present a seemingly insurmountable problem.

To make it obvious, freedom slams the Mexican drug smugglers, ends or dramatically reduces fentanyl use since the legal drugs will offer safety and a consistent high to consumers, allows doctors and patients to work harmoniously, and eliminates the threat of jail to the millions who have used illegal drugs.

One big policy change solves problems that are caused by the flawed policy of telling Americans they can’t use certain drugs when they have demonstrated they will use them no matter what public opinion, judges, police, and politicians say.

The justification for this dramatic change is written into the nation’s founding document: The Declaration of Independence. The men who told the monarch to get lost—so the United States could separate from England. They listed their grievances and specified a plan to make the United States a free country. One of their principles: governments are “instituted” to protect “the pursuit of happiness.” If there is one common theme to the reason why drugs are used it is, “It makes me feel happy.”

The simple truth: all the drugs can be used safely by adults, and in fact in the majority of cases drugs are used safely. Professor Carl Hart has “published numerous scientific and popular articles in the area of neuropsychopharmacology and is coauthor of the textbook Drugs, Society & Human Behavior (with Charles Ksir).” After a lifetime of study, he concluded that “recreational drugs can be used safely to enhance many vital human activities,” (Carl Hart. Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear (p. 9)).

A major reason why we fear drugs: no freedom. Harsh laws have prevented users from discussing their pleasures with friends and neighbors, “Stop worrying. I’ve done it, and it caused no more problems than drink.” Hart offers a practical remedy. He wants drug users to come out of the closet and ignore the laws that force drug use into secret corners. It stops evil moralists from creating scary stories without fear of contradiction. Anyone who has worked for drug reform, realizes that policymakers and well-intentioned people falsely claim the illegal drugs have magical properties. Although merely chemicals, the peddlers of pathology state that illegal drugs overpower the human will, forcing people into a life of desperation.

In this way, millions who have used drugs silently acquiesce to those whose one-sided focus is exclusively and misleadingly on the problems caused by drugs, while ignoring their positive qualities. “Research shows repeatedly that such issues affect only 10 to 30 percent of those who use even the most stigmatized drugs,” (p. 11).

Professor Hart practices what he preaches. In his book, he cites his own experiences: “I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user. I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal, and professional responsibilities. I pay my taxes, serve as a volunteer in my community on a regular basis, and contribute to the global community as an informed and engaged citizen. I am better for my drug use” (p. 14).

Freedom solves this problem, allowing truth to flourish. Drug users may freely speak of their own use of drugs and expose this truth to the light of day. Your friends and neighbors have used drugs and suffered no lasting harm. In fact, some of the happiest moments of their life are drug related.

Freedom lets truth flourish. It is the enemy of drug stigmatizers, which is often circulated even by fair-minded people like Senator Bernie Sanders, who accepts marijuana but damns harder drugs.

Today homosexuals are active players in government. Only rarely will we find a person who knows no one in the LGBTQ+ community. They became accepted as people learned their friends and neighbors were gay or had gay experiences. If we had freedom for drug users then we would know that they are responsible, average people like you and me. Freedom would stop the lies, allow truth to flourish.

A supermajor benefit of drug legalization is the defeat of racist practices. It stops the ugly record of arresting black and brown Americans in large numbers. Drug use no longer becomes a false explanation for poverty.

This change draws on the basic American principle: the pursuit of happiness.

I am still seeking an organizer who would bring life to the Freedom Democrats. At 83 and nearly blind, that person will not be me. I need help.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

What an Organizer Might Do

As we search for an enterprising person to get the Freedom Democrats started, imagine what their job would be.

Already, with a readership of less than 200 persons, legalize.blog has been banned from X. When I try to use it, this message appears: “SUSPICIOUS LOGIN PREVENTED. We blocked an attempt to access your account because we weren’t sure it was really you.” Controversy is a tried-and-true way to gain attention and attract interested people.

But the most obvious task of the organizer of Freedom Democrats is finding the sex workers, porn stars, and drug users who like the idea and want to lend their support to its development. The key selling point is that people in the “life” are organizing and asking their fellow citizens to vote.

The obvious objective is to expand until we can affect elections and offer public leaders support and comfort if they adopt our ideas.

This initial effort doesn’t have to be rigid. It might work best to have the first group of invitees to act as hosts with the purpose of setting up a more permanent group of supporters. The organizer would lead a discussion of the best structure. Are we talking about directors or a list of prominent supporters? Shepherding these choices is one obvious task for the organizer.

Another chicken-and-the-egg issue is using the initial supporters to raise money.

The organizer must also work with lawyers to devise a structure that is simultaneously decentralized, democratic, and coherent. Using the weekly party format for organizing local groups is an excellent way to get started. This project, I think but do not know, would involve tricky legal questions. For example, should the party permit alcoholic drinks? Does that mean young people can’t come? Does that mean the organization can be sued for, for example, a drunk driving incident?

All of these questions give the organizer a chance to acquire specialized knowledge and meet thoughtful and creative people. This is a job that will help build a person’s reputation, even if the person already has years of organizing experience.

Drawing up a preliminary budget and scoping out the legal issues might well be an initial task. The people who are in the “life” will want to read a thoughtful proposal before lending their support. In turn, the reputation of the people we recruit will create access to initial donors. It’s another example of the chicken-and-egg dilemmas that the organizer will confront.

I am searching for a person who wants to be on the ground floor of this project. Contact Nathan Riley at legalize.blog

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Don’t Let Cuomo Become Mayor

I will not pick one candidate for NYC Mayor: Andrew Cuomo.

He makes life difficult for everyone else. When he rejects an idea, he frequently leaves people furious. They had spent hours responding to his detailed questions and end up feeling used. They became convinced Governor Cuomo never supported the idea and did not ask questions in good faith. His attitude makes people feel like supplicants unable to satisfy him; he had no real interest in their proposal.  Like MAGA Republicans, he displays contempt for ideas that improve people’s lives and mocks idealists wishing to make life easier and diminish prejudice.

Think carefully about the stories told about Cuomo and you get a sense of the hostility that surrounds his life at the top of the political ladder. He is the son of a Governor, a member of President Bill Clinton’s cabinet (Secretary of Housing and Urban Renewal), former NYS Attorney General and Governor of New York. You will not find him riding the subway, and he leaves the distinct impression that people who do ride it are unimportant.

Given how often subway riders wait in a station while the MTA fixes a problem, it is unlikely he will be a mass transit Mayor.  Andrew Cuomo enjoys pleasing conservative Democrats by appearing to cut government spending. Spending billions on modernizing the subways will strain the City’s budget and make fiscal conservatives unhappy. Cuomo will bring a bad attitude to this thorny problem.

A telling example of the hatred surrounding him is the fury that led to his resignation on August 24, 2021. The push came from his own party. In the 2020 election, Democrats, who controlled the Assembly, gained control of the State Senate. Within 8 months, these Democrats and an investigation by State Attorney General Letitia James forced him to resign. Those who knew him best showed him the door. Besides a State Legislative investigation, the Attorney General found 11 women who complained Andrew Cuomo would not leave them alone. When they were near, Cuomo made sexual overtures. Even with this evidence of repetitious behavior it still took President Biden’s intervention to force the Governor to leave.

Cuomo’s aides were powerless to stop his harassment—further evidence that he does not listen. Politico reported Federal investigators found Cuomo “repeatedly subjected” women in his office to non-consensual sexual contact, ogling and gender-based nicknames. Top Cuomo staff “were aware of the conduct and retaliated against four of the women he harassed,” the DOJ concluded. Like Mayor Adams, Cuomo staff includes loyalists who protect him even when acting illegally.

His current campaign suggests he learned no lessons from his ignominious ouster as Governor. The City public financing system has strict rules to prevent wasting public funds or obscuring the identity of donors who wish to exceed legal limits. In a filing, Cuomo’s campaign failed to comply and was denied his public funds. Then the city’s Campaign Finance Board found the campaign skirted fund limits by coordinating with an independent PAC that accepted large donations. According to charges, Cuomo’s supposedly independent body worked with the campaign. A fine of $622,056 was imposed and Cuomo’s campaign is fighting the charges.    

Cuomo’s departure from public life was ugly and my belief is Andrew Cuomo should never hold public office again.  I will not place my mark next to Cuomo’s name in the Democratic Primary Election in June.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Let’s Start a Movement For Freedom

All too often, people vote the way their friends and colleagues vote. When unions were strong and union halls were social gathering places, people voted Democratic and for unions.

Unions, of course, have declined, and the union halls play a smaller role in reaching voters. The kinds of people that join unions has changed over the years. Now, union members are usually white-collar workers—schoolteachers, professional athletes, and government office workers. Unions of autoworkers, steelworkers, construction workers, railroad workers, and other working class unions like apartment building employees are important, but they don’t dominate organized labor the way they did after World War II. Frequently, these unions work with their employers to stop foreign competition.

Freedom Democrats will organize a different group: sex workers and their customers, drug users, the LGBTQ+ community, porn watchers and the performers. By throwing weekly parties, Freedom Democrats hope to create a large group that supports personal privacy and seeks alternatives to the forever wars. The weekly parties will allow people of different backgrounds, regardless of education, to create groups of voters who can influence politics in their community and hopefully in Washington D.C. It is hoped that the weekly parties take the place of union halls as social gatherings for voters.

Freedom is critical to this group because all too often politicians impose criminal penalties, often harsh, that interfere with these people’s lives. The Declaration of Independence guarantees us equality and the right to pursue happiness as we choose. Turning these ideals into reality appeals to many Americans. In all probability, the people coming to the Freedom Democratic parties will include many who aren’t sex workers, lesbians, transgendered, or gay and prefer real sex to porn. They simply don’t care how other people live their lives, but they don’t want government interference. Adults in a free country can make up their own minds about how they get high or how they get off.

In a free country, doctors can treat patients without strangers, especially politicians and the law telling them how to do their job. The free choice that women should have with regard to abortion should also apply to people’s other personal habits. Doctors should be free to work with patients on a treatment plan that conforms to medical standards without the law or moralists telling doctors how to do their job. Most especially, doctors should be able to prescribe drugs that make users’ lives comfortable without judges or the DEA interfering.

Freedom Democrats are trying to turn the Declaration of Independence’s promise into daily reality. This idea is attractive to all kinds of people, including those who don’t take drugs or purchase sex. For this reason, it is hoped that Freedom Democrats will appeal to many Americans and give the group influence. If Freedom Democrats can nominate candidates, provide votes that help elect officials, it will have a chance to change attitudes and the law in this country.

I am 82, nearly blind, and eager to find enterprising people who want to start such a movement. I can only offer an idea. It is up to others to turn that idea into a reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Drug Use Is No More Addictive Than Overeating

Since World War II, caring people have rejected stigma, recognizing its cruelty.

Freedom Democrats enthusiastically join in the fight against stigma. The latest group to hold its head high and say, “We are doing nothing wrong,” is drug users. It has become increasingly difficult to accept the stigma that using hard and psychedelic drugs is always harmful and should be illegal. More and more drug users reject the hostile conclusion that getting high must be destructive behavior. Some people have problems with drugs, just as some people have problems with overeating, but the growing body of evidence makes it clear that many people use drugs and have fulfilling lives. It is mean to look down on drug users.

In the United States black people were stigmatized before and after slavery. Black workers were stigmatized as lazy and stupid. Whites were often surprised by blacks’ intelligence and shrewdness. Written before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass’s autobiography was greeted with skepticism. No black, the stigmatizers said, could write that well; a white person must have been the actual author.

When it comes to stigma, the unfair treatment of blacks has lasted an extraordinarily long time, but other stigmatized groups have shed their negative labels since World War II. Historically homosexuals were mocked, occasionally locked up, until the nation went crazy. Immediately after World War II, gays became a national threat. They were considered security risks. Homosexuals could stay in the closet, but if their loves became public, they lost their jobs. It became illegal for Uncle Sam to provide employment to LG persons.

During this gruesome period, supporters of homosexuals helped lesbians and gays stay in the closet. These heterosexuals, like my parents, thought it was helpful to call lesbians and gays “sick.” Sick people deserved compassion and treatment. Psychiatrists thought that gays could become heterosexual with treatment. In other words, lesbian and gay people could become “healthy” by just being like straights. Men chasing women was considered “normal.” “Sick” had turned into a stigma.

During this same period, women fought stigmas that labeled them overly emotional flibbertigibbets who created confusion until men straightened out the problems. Men were the smart, rational backbone of government and society. Women took care of the home. This prejudice was stupid. Virtually every open-minded person understood that some women were smarter than some men and that women often had better solutions to problems. Feminism blossomed and so did the view that women are equal to men.

By the 1960’s, a growing population across the globe realized that labeling groups as “inferior” was wrong. Stigmatization demeaned same sex love, women, blacks, Spanish speaking, and in the northern United States southern whites were stigmatized. It took George Wallace running for President to demonstrate that some whites in the North were just as racist as some whites in the South.

The battle against stigma was widespread in the United States after the upheavals of the 1960’s. As the times changed even the military, long considered a deeply conservative institution, adopted anti-stigmatization policies. Gay and lesbian soldiers opened doors that allowed the transgendered to work in the military. Women, blacks, and Spanish speaking people became senior officers whose rank required them to command white men. Stigma didn’t disappear, but it became dubious and presumptively illegal in the eyes of the law.

This social change is attacked by the Donald Trump administration. Diversity is damned, and employees are dismissed for supporting it. It will be a hot-button issue as long as Trump is president.

Nonetheless, the battle against stigma is being fought on a new front. The latest group fighting stigma is drug users. Slowly but surely, it is being recognized that drug users are not sick nor demented.

In fact, much if not most of drug users’ pain is caused by stigmatizing drug use. Change has been painfully slow. In the 1960’s, using marijuana was considered dangerous. It led to laziness, opened the door to stronger drugs like heroin, and demonstrated a contempt for law. This argument failed. Marijuana use became widespread, and its users did not become drug addicts. Stigmatizing people is dangerous, wrong, and causes harm.

World War II and the German Holocaust had exposed the dangers of racial categories. Their acceptance could justify horrific acts. As the lesson of World War II became clear, segregation in the army and the classroom became illegal. The battle to give blacks the right to vote and end Jim Crow practices created interracial friendships. Smoking pot was not only fun, it was a form of solidarity with the victims of racism.

Pot use skyrocketed and by high school teenagers had been to parties where some people got stoned. It became impossible to claim pot was dangerous. The menace of drug use had been disproved. Zero tolerance, or the goal of making America drug free, became absurd extremism.

In city after city, all over the world, it became recognized that some people did drugs, always had and always will. Policy makers were forced to answer the question, what is the harm? If it was the spread of disease from needle-sharing, then it became obvious that drug users should have a steady supply of sterile needles. Though by no means universal, harm reduction became a public health objective. Cities like San Francisco boasted of their accomplishments in reducing drug related harm. Other cities kept their policies lowkey and faced attacks if their harm reduction programs became public knowledge.

Harm reduction is a major step forward, but like supporting homosexuals because they are “sick” it doesn’t dispute the belief that drug use is dangerous and inferior behavior.

A growing chorus of thinkers now argue that drug users are not sick and those who have problems deserve help. It is generally understood that gambling can become addictive and lead to financial disaster. In fact, most gamblers watch their pocketbook and stay within a budget. Gambling is fun, and that is why people like it. Drug users are just as sensible.

The argument that heroin is dangerous because it is addictive has become suspect. Gambling can be addictive for some but not for others, the same is true for heroin. Bankers, plumbers, and college professors use heroin without harming their careers. A Columbia University professor came out of the closet about his drug use. Carl Hart makes this argument in his book Drug Use for Grown-Ups. Consider this observation: lock-ups in cities all over the United States don’t help heroin users going through withdrawal. For some, it is horrible agony, but for many it’s just a challenge and they “tough it out.” Don’t think you know about heroin’s effects because you read newspaper stories or saw antidrug movies. The effects are individual, and they vary with the individual, just like gambling and drinking. Some people get great pleasure from eating and preparing food; other people overeat. You can’t generalize about drug use anymore than you can generalize about eating.

Addiction is a troublesome concept. Using heroin, methamphetamine, is a problem for some but not everyone. That is the lesson that Freedom Democrats are learning and disseminating.

In a free country, no judge should be allowed to tell a person you must go into treatment. It should be up to the person to decide if they want help. Nobody should be allowed to shout “Don’t do this! You will go to jail!” That is not freedom; it is stigmatizing and ignores the right of persons to make their own decisions about how they live their lives.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will Ukrainian War End Like The Civil War?

I certainly don’t know when the Ukrainian war will end. The ignominious end of the 30-day ceasefire proposal reminds us that the Iron Curtain still separates the West and Russia. It is not going away.

But we do know how one war ended. In the United States, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, never surrendered. The fighting stopped when General Ulysses Grant and General Robert E. Lee agreed on terms of surrender.

In September 1864, General Sherman captured Atlanta. Republican spirits soared, and Lincoln became the first President since Andrew Jackson elected to a second term.

After Atlanta, Jefferson Davis left Richmond, Virginia and rallied the South with promises of victory, claiming “I see no chance for Sherman to escape from a defeat or a disgraceful retreat,” (McPherson, James M.. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States Book 6) (p. 807). Oxford University Press). The world, of course, saw the occupation of Atlanta as proof that the Union was close to victory. But the war wouldn’t end for nearly eight months.

Confederate politicians insisted that victory was possible. General Sherman agreed the war wasn’t close to ending: “We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South, but we can make war so terrible . . . [and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it” (p. 809).

After his famous march through Georgia, Sherman attacked South Carolina, the state that ignited the war. Until late 1864, the war had left the Palmetto State untouched. With a vengeance, the North attacked. The state’s long, Atlantic-Ocean coastline made it the last place for the South to receive supplies. The Navy stopped that. The fort protecting South Carolina’s port was captured, and traders were driven off. Town after town was burned. Livestock captured and fed Sherman’s army. Homes were looted for supplies. The state could no longer supply the thousands in General Lee’s divisions.

From there, Sherman’s army marched through North Carolina towards Virginia, preparing to join General Grant in attacking Lee and his army. The long journey was an engineering marvel. Roads under water during the wet winter were restored, bridges built, and the South’s hopes that these natural obstacles would stop Sherman were dashed.

So the war continued.

In Lincoln’s December 1864 annual message to Congress, he rejoiced in the victories but cautioned that the South would only end the war with a demonstration of its hopelessness. However obvious the South’s defeat appeared, it continued to fight.

“In this climate of opinion another movement for peace negotiations flared up and then fizzled out,” Professor James McPherson commented in his extraordinary history.  Lincoln met the Southern delegation and told them bluntly that peace would happen when the Confederacy recognized the restoration of the National authority throughout all the States, no receding on the Slavery question, and the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government (p. 822). The Southern peace feelers failed.

Lee’s army crumbled. Every night a hundred or more soldiers deserted. Soldiers were in bare feet. Men and horses were weak from hunger. When Southerners attacked, the North won. It captured the soldiers and drove Lee’s men back.

Finally, on April 9th, Lee recognized that surrender was the only option. He met with General Grant. His troops were fed, surrendered their arms, and were guaranteed that they would not be tried for treason. They began the long march home. The war was over. Jefferson Davis was not involved in this event, nor was Abraham Lincoln.

It’s entirely possible, even probable, that negotiations will not end the war in Ukraine. Unlike the South, Ukraine is guaranteed funds and supplies. But the country is war torn. Russia is far larger, and despite sporadic attacks, the nation hasn’t suffered the destruction inflicted on Ukraine. The Ukrainians will decide when they want the fighting to stop, and there is no sign that this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Welcome to Freedom Democrats

This blog is about creating a new wing of Democrats, pointing the party in a new direction.

Freedom Democrats support people who party, be they drug users, sex workers, porn watchers, or porn performers. Regardless of their pleasures, everybody should be respected and have their voice heard. We are not alone. DecrimNY and other groups across the United States are working to decriminalize sex work. Freedom Democrats should have an obligation to listen and understand the proposals these specialized groups are making. They have not only the respect of Freedom Democrats, but, more significantly, they have worked on rules to help sex workers do their job with dignity. Working in a brothel is only justified if the sex worker preserves their right to stop work or reject a trick. A person’s right to autonomy over their own body means that they mustn’t be forced to accept every customer.

I believe Freedom Democrats support the right to decide if a person want to practice monogamy. Such arrangements should be made honestly and explicitly between couples. Life would be smoother if a person’s sexual escapades don’t become a source of pain and surprise to another partner. Again, like with sex work, people have understood this, and couples routinely work this out. This is not a radical idea to many Democrats and Republicans.

But life isn’t a free-for-all. The right to say no has received positive attention from the #MeToo movement. It’s one thing to ask; it’s quite another to pursue a person after they have said no. For Freedom Democrats to work well with others, they should be willing to quickly and easily accept refusals. At the same time, people who party, should have spaces where the sexually adventurous can meet, and it is not offensive for a person to make a pass or sneak into a corner for some private time.

None of these issues are new to the Democratic Party, but Freedom Democrats propose to organize by having weekly parties of persons who are comfortable around drugs and sexual activity. This special feature of a Freedom Democrats’ weekly parties holds out hopes that like-minded people can organize and become a new wing of the Democratic party.

At the same time, Freedom Democrats should oppose war because war is about the powerful imposing their will, even if it’s against the wishes of the loser; it is the opposite of freedom. International affairs exist in a state of anarchy; disagreements are all too often settled by violence.

Ending this violence has been the fond hope of thoughtful people for centuries. War is scattered all over the globe and causes sorrow on continent after continent. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, “peace—based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions” should be the ambitious goal. Freedom Democrats, I believe, should make it a primary objective.

I believe they should seek to turn the United Nations into a world government. Any nation that has a grievance should be able to appear before the United Nations. Lawyers and diplomats should replace soldiers and weapons. As a world government, the decisions of the United Nations would be enforced. Nations would lose the dubious ability to reject a proposal because the powerful think they can impose their plan using violence and the assets that the richer have against poorer nations.

Freedom Democrats are just taking baby steps. It is our objective to have specialists devise plans for world government. The object is to get the discussion started. World government should be debated on college campuses. It should be the subject of scholarly study. There is no reason to expect that Freedom Democrats will start a world government, but there is a hope that Freedom Democrats will start the debate.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Obstacles to World Government

The rising death toll in Gaza should be linked to the tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine. By the time the United States left Afghanistan, starvation had become a problem for the supposed victors of the invasion following the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.

Syria and Iraq and various states in Africa confront persistent violence.

In my last blog, I argued that world government was the best way to end the constant eruption of wars.

A major reward of turning the United Nations into a world government is historical greatness. The change is as drastic as going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1787. From a system of voluntary cooperation to the establishment of a central government that had overall responsibility for preserving the peace of the new nation.

This has proved a daunting task: ending slavery with a bloody civil war demonstrates that the founders’ solution was far from perfect. Nonetheless, students of history still recognize the great achievements of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, to name just a few of the historically great leaders who turned victory over Great Britain into a system of united states.

Creating a world government would be just as great a historical achievement as turning the revolutionary victory into a permanent government. If you want the world to remember you for generations then you want to become a patriot establishing a functioning world government.

Overcoming the obstacles to world government will mark you as a great person, a maker of history. In this blog, we will look at what happens to U.S. power if the United Nations becomes the seat of world government.

Stated baldly, this means the United States and presumably its allies cannot go to war without the permission of the United Nations.

World government requires that before a nation can turn to mass violence it must first make its case to the lawyers and diplomats at the U.N. This system of resolving conflict is well established in the United States. Our courts are respected and there are dozens of ways that grievances can be heard without resort to violence.

Transferring this system to the United States and the world would be a stupendous achievement. To take the example of Palestine, Israeli soldiers would no longer occupy this country. Creating a safe border between Israel and Palestine would be the responsibility of the United Nations. U.N. soldiers would have the task of preserving peace along the borders between these two nations.

Recruiting troops and their supplies is expensive. If the U.N. had the taxing power to pay for an international police force, then presumably the United States would provide the cash and presumably have influence over final decisions.

Or an even more dramatic change, the U.N. has the power to directly impose taxes. The United States was broke under the voluntary system of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, Hamilton, and numerous generals constantly begged for money to buy supplies.

In the end, the United States depended on loans from European nations. Under the Constitution of 1787, the new central government was guaranteed the opportunity to raise funds, especially through the tariff and selling U.S. bonds. Revenue came from taxes and borrowing.

Making the U.N. the world government would require that it could raise billions of dollars every year.

The political problem is sovereignty or who runs the show. Right now the United States funds the U.N., but with world government it’s entirely plausible that the United States, China, Russia etc. would depend on U.N. funding.

The justification for this dramatic change in power is peace. In return for making every country, big and small, dependent on the U.N. these nations obtain the right to bring their complaints to U.N. agencies. The arguments would be settled by quasi-judicial rulings, without bullets or bombs.

What appears to be a loss of power by the United States becomes a boon to the people of the world. The risks of invasion, war, and tribal conflicts become minimized if the U.N. has the soldiers to stop another country from going to war.

Undoubtedly a major source of U.N. troops would be American soldiers who volunteered to serve as U.N. enforcers. Even with their sworn allegiance to the U.N., U.S. soldiers are unlikely to attack the United States. Thus the safety of the population of the United States can be assured. Similar considerations can be made for other large nations.

Taxes and soldiers, international cooperation to confront climate change, and using world wealth to build hospitals and schools in impoverished nations would clearly benefit from world government.

It is likely that world government would create tens of thousands of projects that would improve living conditions and put the world on the path to growth and prosperity.